1. This second appeal is focused by the original defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 110. 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.81 of 2007, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu in O.S.No.398 of 2002. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

The original defendant/appellant filed the suit O.S.No.398 of 2002 as against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) directing the defendant to quit and delivery vacant possession of the suit premises at Plot No.1070, Door No.386, I Cross Street, Nehru Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041, to the plaintiff;

(b) directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.1,01,200/-to the plaintiff towards lease rent arrears from 112. 2000 to 15.02.2002;

(c) directing the defendant to pay future rent from the date of presentation of the plaint till the date of eviction;

(d) directing the defendant to pay costs of this suit to the plaintiff; and

(e) for such other reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice."

The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit.

3. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

4. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, as against which First Appeal was filed, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is focused on various grounds and also setting out some substantial questions of law.

6. After hearing for some time the arguments on both sides, this Court felt that on the consent of both sides, this matter could be disposed of finally by framing the following substantial question of law:

"Whether both the Courts below erred in upholding that there is valid termination of tenancy of the defendant by the plaintiffs notice?"

7. A plain poring over and perusal of the relevant records including the certified copies of the judgment and decrees of both the Courts below would display and demonstrate that the plaintiff filed the suit for evicting the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent after issuing the termination notice. Whereas, the defendant filed the written statement and resisted the suit by setting out various pleas, including the one that there was no valid termination of tenancy.

8. Both sides advanced arguments touching upon the substantial questions of law.

9. Ex.A2 dated 08.06.2000 is the notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of reply to Ex.A1, the defendants notice and also terminating the tenancy of the defendant by the end of 30th June 2000 and calling upon him to hand over possession of the suit property by 1st of July 2000.

10. Indubitably and incontrovertibly, unassailably and admittedly, subsequent to such notice also there were payments of rent by the defendant and acceptance by the plaintiff. As such, it has to be taken that Ex.A2, the termination notice had lost its significance. However, subsequently there were correspondences between the parties, and the plaintiff as per Ex.A3, the notice dated 03.01.2002 stated thus in paragraph 7 and 8 and it is extracted here under for ready reference.

"7. We therefore call upon you to pay the sum of Rs.72,400/- due from you towards the rental arrears, immediately. Also note that you are liable to pay monthly rent from January, 2002